Brain-Aide

A few days ago I wrote about Wired magazines top 10 green-tech innovations for 2008. At the top of the list was an experimental Carbon negative cement factory that is about to go online.

Well, it seems that the boys (and girls) from Calera have competition in the form of British engineers (from the company Novacem) who are working on their version of a carbon negative cement factory. This bodes well for the consumer as well as the long term survivability of the product. Simply put, competition generally is the most reliable stimulus for innovation - with a downward effect on price. And competition can often be the shock that companies need to be efficient and thorough with their business model.

Both factories seem to be employing similar production methods that mimic organic processes through which chalk, a basic component of cement, is made. What is not clear at this moment is if the two companies are true competitors or different branches of the same parent company.

As mentioned in the previous post, the cement industry is one of the largest producer of GHGs in the world. Any attempt to green this industry is welcome.

Sorry for the long hiatus.

Wired magazine has put out its list of green innovation for 2008. Although there are a number of worthwhile inventions/innovation on the list, Wired’s number one choice is not only inspired, it is potentially revolutionary; a green cement factory.

It is not a well known fact, but cement production has a huge carbon foot-print. The industry accounts for a disproportionate amount of GHG release compared to other sectors. Given how necessary and ubiquitous cement is to modern life (particularly urban life), the industry has proven to be a sore point for environmental policy makers who have to find the balance between economic necessity and environmental protection. After all, if cement prices sky-rocket, the public outcry over rising house costs would be tremendous (and run counter to good social policy).

In the EU, emission exemptions to cement industry (amongst others) were one of the factors that led to the collapse the carbon market. Basically, there was no point in trading carbon permits within marginal carbon producers if the big producers were exempt. As a result the market for GHG permits dried up to the point where one ton of Carbon dioxide was trading for under a dollar. To give you a bit of perspective, carbon taxes (different from carbon trading) only has the effect of reducing emissions if the cost is in excess of 30 dollars a ton.

However, a cement factory that takes carbon out of the atmosphere rather than just reduce emissions can potentially revolutionize the industry and also make it easier to tackle a huge problem in environmental policy. If this technology pans out, cement producers not only have a way of reducing their costs while sequestering carbon, environmental policy makers will not be hobbled by the economy vs environment trade-off. I certain hope the demonstration plant that will be opening up next year will be the first step of many in providing economical green solutions to the cement industry. The company that is doing all of this, Calera, will be one to watch in 2009.

This is a fantastically readable article in the New York Times that compiles many of the green architecture trends and choices emerging across North America into one article, with a focus on water-management. I look forward to many of these projects coming up in an integrated manner.

For those looking to see local (Toronto based) examples, check out the bio-wall and green roof at the Center for Social Innovation on Spadina.

To recap, there has been considerable grassroots resistance to the setting up of an off-shore wind measuring device as the first step to an wind-farm.

I received this through an email yesterday from the Toronto Environmental Alliance, as a call to arms for environmentalists to support the development and push the issue through. The message itself is the perfect example of how not to do it.

Instead of winning affected communities over, the TEA has threatened an even deeper divide by polarizing the issue. The language used, ludicrously terms this highly localized issue as a global one and suggests that failure here would bring everything to a “screeching halt”.

What’s missing here is any meaningful outreach strategy that would be used communicate with disaffected communities. Instead of winding down a conflict and looking for compromises, TEA’s approach could potentially set off a grass-roots level arms race that would see organizers increasingly get in each others faces and network outwards to other disaffected communities. Unless the Ontario government is dedicated to the green revolution (which it is not), this will turn into an ugly political battle with a very messy outcome and no clear winners.

The November 24th meeting will interesting indeed.

The Newsweek article says it all. The one thing every (former and current) political staffer is taught about messaging is that only when you truly become sick of the message, will it begin to stick in the minds of people. The basic message in this article is something I have heard and advocated in various forms, ad nauseum. But it will take a lot more for the idea to truly entrench in the minds of policy makers. Be sure to pass the idea forward…

Continuing with the thread of communities fighting wind-farms, here is an interesting tale that has been brewing for some time in New York. In this case, the allegations are much more serious with communities claiming that wind-farm developers engaged in bribery, threats and corruption (conflict of interest situations) to get approvals from municipal officials.

To counter the crisis, New York’s Attorney General drafted a “Wind Industry Code of Ethics” to govern the behaviour of wind-farm owners. Included in the provisions are measures limiting the donations and gifts to municipal officials, conflict of interest provisions in hiring municipal officials and information privacy policies. So far only two companies have signed onto the Code of Ethics

The Code of Ethics in it self is not all that original and sets out fairly rudimentary conflict of interest provisions. Given that conflict of interest provisions are generally placed to control the excesses of “big” business and establish a fair playing field for all stakeholders, it is disappointing when such measures have to be explicitly applied to an industry that has sold itself on the moral high ground of environmentalism.  Contrary to the claims of the Wind Industry, such provisions will NOT hamper the development of more wind farms. There are conflict of interest provisions in play in thousands of jurisdictions around the world (many of which are much more stringent), without negatively affecting business outcomes. These provisions, if adhered to, will allow the Wind Industry in New york to regain the public trust of the communities in which they operate.

Unfortunately, what happened in New york was much worse than the simple betrayal of the public trust. The industry displayed arrogance and greed, engaged in corruption and abused communities. As someone who has actively pushed for the implementation of green technologies, I am disheartened by it and hope that such behaviour never raises its ugly head in green businesses again.

Although renewable energy has the public persona of being harmless, wind farms have an extensive history of raising the ire of rural communities. The anger comes from the fairly disruptive effects of windfarm activities, such as noise, the seemingly excessive bird kills and even the view.

Combined, local opposition groups can be a powerful force against future wind energy projects. And even if the letter of the law is for the project, a well organized opposition can shift public opinion against the project. This does not mean that rural, or even some urban communities, are against green power. What it means is that wind farm developers and even environmental advocacy agencies have to take into account the NIMBY factor, engage in meaningful outreach with affected communities and actively try to mitigate the impacts of wind technology.

The NIMBY factor comes into play with any seemingly disruptive energy development. One recent example is the push to develop a North-South running powerline in Alberta that met stiff resistance from the rural and environmental community. The issue turned into a public relations disaster for the Stelmach government, when it turned out that the government body overseeing the public hearings hired private investigators to spy on the opposing farmers.

The lesson here is that green energy advocates have to be tuned into the public and political sentiment instead of blindly advocating a technology/environment first agenda. Any environmental and political agenda must to be sensitive to the needs and concerns of the people it affects, otherwise renewables will have a long and difficult climb ahead.

In the meanwhile it will be interesting to see how these local battles around wind energy are going to shape up in Ontario.

Every once in a while somebody comes up with a seemingly impossible idea. Professor Nakamura from the University of Toyama has literally started “printing” biological, three dimentional objects using modified ink jet printer technology, with hopes of being able to print a heart in the future. If this technology is ever perfected, the benefits could be huge; custom made “rejection proof” organs, stem cells etc.

You can check out the story here. If anyone has any additional (or corroborating) information, please do not hesitate in passing it along.

This is an utterly fascinating Globe and Mail article about a man who used current construction techniques to handily exceed the efficiency of R-2000 homes, the current gold standard of Net-Zero homes. Enjoy!

The Pentagon has been conducting tests and competitions to end their dependency on fossil fuels. The push comes partially from recognition that the US armed forces are dependent on fuels from politically unstable areas with wildly fluctuating costs. In the last few years the US Air Force has been testing synthetic fuels in a variety of its air-craft; from the top of the line F-22 Raptor to the Cold War era B-52s. But the shift to “green” goes much deeper than fuels.

According to Wired Magazine, current and near-future conflicts will be conducted in relation to strong civic/political stabilization components. The Pentagon has therefore started demonstrating unique, innovative and easily deployable technologies ranging from solar panels to tents to be applied through the stabilization area. As noted by Wired, the effort has brought about a curious (though likely, very limited) linguistic shift towards phrases like “sustainable solutions” rather than the normal military speak.

It should be interesting to see just how many of the technology demonstrators actually make it into the field and to what extent the US Armed Forces will be involved in sustained long term stabilization operations. However, even if the military falters, the spillover effect could still be a slew of cheap, “green” technologies that have easy commercial and civilian application.